Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 second appeal, along with Ext.P4 petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. The learned Government Pleader submits that considering the date of the order passed by the appellate authority, it is doubted that the proceedings are barred by limitation. The appeal filed is beyond the prescribed time.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the order is dated 23.12.2011, certified copy was served to the petitioner much later and the appeal has been filed within time. Even otherwise, if any defect is noted with regard to any delay, the petitioner is ready to file necessary petition explaining the facts and W.P.C. No. 33611 of 2014 -2-
circumstances to condone the delay as well. In these circumstances I.A. .filed by the petitioner might be ordered to be considered within one month, submits the learned counsel.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P4 petition for stay, and petition to condone the delay, if any, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
sj